The Convention adjourned from July 26^th to August 6^th to allow the Committee of Detail – composed of John Rutledge of South Carolina, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania – to prepare a rough draft of a constitution, based on the series of resolutions the delegates had debated, amended, and debated again. When the Convention re-convened, the Committee of Detail presented its report, made up of twenty-three articles. The Convention spent the remainder of August reviewing and further revising these articles.

We the People of…

Delegates quickly agreed to accept the Committee of Detail’s preamble and Articles I and II, affirming the new government would be called the Unites States of America and consist of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. This agreement masked the critical issue that the Convention had debated throughout – was this to be a union of states or of people? The Committee of Detail’s constitution began, “We the people of the States (emphasis added) of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.” The Convention would not end with that language in the preamble.

Representation: Who, What, and How Many?

Discussion of the Committee of Detail report continued to include the structure and powers of the legislative branch. Some of the key questions included: Who can elect representatives? How many representatives will there be? What will be their qualifications?

Delegates debated whether to allow non-land owners to the right to vote for House members, or reserve the franchise to property owners. Gouverneur Morris wanted to restrict voting to those with property, considering them more educated and better able to choose wise leaders. “The ignorant and dependant,” Morris stated, “can be… little trusted with the public interest.” Colonel Mason countered arguments of this kind, saying all citizens should have equal voting rights and privileges.  Doctor Franklin sided with Colonel Mason believing that restricting the right to vote to land owners would cause contention among the people. In the end Morris’s proposal to restrict the franchise to property owners was defeated soundly (7-1-1).

Just as the Convention rejected a plan to restrict voting to property owners, they also rejected a proposal to restrict elective office to property owners. South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney moved that “the President of the U.S., the Judges, and members of the Legislature should be required to swear that they were respectively possessed of a cleared unencumbered Estate” – in an amount to be agreed upon by members of the Convention. This proposal went nowhere. Benjamin Franklin expressed his “dislike of every thing that tended to debase the spirit of the common people,” and observed  that “some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted with, were the richest rogues.” Madison reports that Pinckney’s motion “was rejected by so general a no, that the States were not called.”

The Convention did have a sentiment in favor of strong citizenship requirements for legislators. The Committee of Detail’s report required members of the House be U.S. citizens for three years prior to election, and members of the Senate for four years. Some, including George Mason and Morris, agreed that a lengthy citizenship requirement would protect the legislature from foreign intrigue. Others, including Madison and Franklin, pointed to the number of foreign friends who had helped the states during the war for independence. Delegates sided with Mason and Morris, agreeing to requirements that members of the House be citizens for seven years and members of the Senate for nine years prior to election.

On the question of how many representatives would make up the national legislature, Article IV of the Committee of Detail Report stated that the House of Representatives would initially consist of sixty-five members, and that in the future, members of the House would be added “at the rate of one for every forty thousand.” Madison, expecting the Union to grow rapidly, thought that rate would quickly lead the House to grow too large. Others thought that time would make this issue irrelevant. Mr. Nathaniel Gorham from Massachusetts asked, “Can it be supposed that this vast country including the Western territory will 150 years hence remain one nation? Mr. Oliver Ellsworth observed that “If the government should continue so long, alterations may be made in the Constitution” through the amendment process. Delegates agreed to add the language “not exceeding” to the one representative for 40,000 citizen ratio, making that a ceiling and not a floor. Controversy over this provision would re-emerge before the end of the Convention, however.

The Specter of Slavery

Likewise, controversy would emerge about slavery. Consideration of the apportionment of representatives raised the question of whether slaves would be included within that ratio. Morris rose on August 8 and gave a withering criticism of the institution. Moving to specify that this ratio would include only “free” inhabitants, Morris called slavery “a nefarious institution,” and “the curse of heaven”. Comparing free with slave states, Morris noted, on the one hand, “a rich and noble cultivation [which] marks the prosperity and happiness of the people,” and on the other “the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves.” Morris’s motion was defeated 10-1, but the issue of how slavery would be addressed by the new union was by no means resolved.

For more detailed information on the Constitutional Convention, please visit Prof. Gordon Lloyd’s web companion to the Philadelphia Convention.

Philadelphia –

The Gerry Commission report gave form to the idea, which had been bubbling up in debate, of a union “partly national, partly federal”. Because this idea was gaining momentum, the Gerry Commission report might be seen as the “Nationalists’ Last Gasp.” The bloc of delegates – including James Madison, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris – who had hoped to create a new national government that would act on people as individuals (and virtually eliminate any vestiges of state sovereignty), saw the writing on the wall.

July 5 closed with Elbridge Gerry defending the compromise suggested by his committee from attacks by nationalists. “We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations,” he explained, but if the nationalists and the defenders of state sovereignty did not “come to some agreement among ourselves some foreign sword will probably do the work for us.” With this, and with George Mason telling the delegates, in effect, that they would leave over his dead body, debate about the Gerry Committee report began in earnest.

One provision of the report, which said money bills should originate in the lower house, was dealt with rather quickly. Gouverneur Morris – who was (next to Alexander Hamilton) the most vocal defender of aristocracy, and a powerful Senate, in the Convention  – objected forcefully. Benjamin Franklin seems to have been more persuasive in stating that power over the purse strings should be lodged in the house that was most closely tied to the people.

The question of representation – of who should be heard, and how loudly – continued to be difficult. Smaller states were fearful of the proposed ratio of one representative for 40,000 inhabitants; tiny Delaware, it was noted, had just 35,000 inhabitants. In the first enumeration based on this ratio, there would only be 56 representatives in the lower house of Congress. All had to consider how the addition of new states would affect the balance of power. A later compromise fixed this number at 65. For some, even this was too small. George Mason observed that 38 members would make a quorum, and thus 20 votes could make a majority; Madison proposed (unsuccessfully) that the size of the lower house be doubled from 65. Roger Sherman (CT) and John Rutledge (SC) thought 65 too large, as it would be difficult to find enough individuals of a characters fit for public office.

Did the Delegates Count Slaves as Three-Fifths of a Person?

Nationalist James Wilson articulated the paradox facing the delegates over the issue of slavery and how it affected the current debate over the nature of the government. Were enslaved people citizens? If so, then why not count them towards state population counts? Or were they property? If so, then why were other forms of property not figured into the equation for determining taxation?

The delegates began to see their way clear once they tethered representation to taxation: direct taxes would be in proportion to representation.

But William Davie of North Carolina saw a conspiracy to ensure slave holding states would not be able to count any of their slave populations towards representation at the convention. It was “high time to speak out now,” he said. North Carolina would never agree to any terms of confederation unless black populations were counted at least by a ratio of at least 3/5ths. If black populations were going to be excluded altogether, “the business was at an end.” Many delegates balked at the the 3/5ths ratio. Morris answered Davie’s challenge by pointing out the voluntary nature of the compact the states would be entering. Morris summed up his position like this — he would have to offend either the Southern states or human nature himself, and given that choice, he would offend the Southern states.

The delegates approved (6-2-2) the 3/5ths ratio, settling that question, though pointed exchanges about slavery would continue. The arguments may have been nuanced, emotional, and even explosive, but reason for them was simple: Representation in Congress meant power. And part of that power might have been brought to bear against slavery itself. Had the 3/5ths clause, as it has become known, not been ratified, what might have been the alternative? If the less populous slave states had been able to count their entire slave populations towards representation, that would have meant much greater power in Congress for the South. If they had been able to count none of their slave populations, perhaps there would have been no Constitution.

Connecticut Compromise

Similar types of arguments surfaced in debates over representation in the national legislature: would states be represented (in other words, would the confederation still be a confederacy?) or would the people (establishing a national government that drew its power from and acted on individuals)?

Madison, architect of the Virginia Plan and still a promoter of a national system, argued against the idea that the government could be partly national and partly federal. When, he asked, would the central government be called upon to act in a way that did not impact individuals? “In all cases where the general government is to act on the people, let the people be represented and the votes be proportional. In all cases where the government is to act on the States as such, in like manner as Congress now act on them, let the States be represented and the votes be equal.”

After the weekend break, the delegates returned to approve (5 – 4 – 1) the Gerry Committee Report. Representation in the House of Representatives would be proportional and based on population; Senate representation would be equal for each State, and money bills would originate in the House and be un-amendable in the Senate. This is also known as the Connecticut Compromise, and is seen by many as a significant turning point in the Convention.

Philadelphia -

The eleventh anniversary of independence saw the Convention at an impasse. The delegates could not agree on the question of how to structure a legislative body for the union – because all knew this decision raised the question of whether they should merely strengthen the confederation, or create a new national government in its place.

The July 3-4 adjournment for Independence Day gave many delegates a respite from wearying debate. For eleven members of the committee chaired by Massachusetts’s Elbridge Gerry, however, debate continued, as they met on July 3 to discuss a practical solution to the issues that the Convention was struggling to solve. On July 4, delegates congregated at Philadelphia’s Race Street Church to hear a speech commemorating independence. On July 5, the fireworks resumed.

The Gerry Committee Report

When the Convention resumed its business on Thursday morning, July 5, the Gerry Committee was prepared with a report. The Committee, which consisted of one delegate from each of the eleven states represented at the Convention, was asked to handle the sensitive issue of representation in a union that some still view as federal but others are trying to make national. Elbridge Gerry (who had signed the Declaration of Independence in this same city eleven years ago) rose to explain the report to the Convention. The report had three parts, which gave form to the view that had been developing of a union partly national and partly federal:

1. The first branch of legislature will be elected by population (as the large states had called for) with states being apportioned one member for every 40,000 inhabitants.
2. All bills that raise and appropriate money will originate in the First House and shall not be amended by the Second House
3. In the second branch of the legislature each state will be represented equally.

Debate in the Assembly and in Committee

Gerry admitted to the Convention, after presenting the report, that it was a very thin compromise, and that Committee delegates “agreed to the Report merely in order that some ground of accommodation might be proposed”. None of the Committee members, he continued, was “under any obligation to support the Report”.

Nor were some of the Convention’s leading delegates inclined to support the Gerry Committee’s suggested compromise. Mr. Madison seems to have viewed the compromise as a crippling blow to the Virginia Plan, which had been designed to combat what Madison saw as the vices of the political system under the Articles of Confederation. He rose and in a long speech proclaimed his fear that “the Convention was reduced to the alternative of either departing from justice in order to conciliate the smaller States, and the minority of the people of the U. S.” on the one hand, or of “displeasing these by justly gratifying the larger States and the majority of the people” on the other.

He then made the issue personal, recalling a statement made by Mr. Bedford (of Delaware) prior to the adjournment for Independence Day. Bedford, chafing against the nationalists’ plan, had challenged, “We have been told with a dictatorial air that this is the last moment for a fair trial in favor of a good Government. It will be the last indeed if the propositions reported from the Committee go forth to the people.” Bedford seemingly taunted the large states, saying that they “dare not dissolve the Confederation. If they do the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.” Though Bedford qualified that “He did not mean by this to intimidate or alarm,” Madison responded to that comment as if it were a threat, stopping just short of calling Bedford a turncoat, and hinting that the large states might just challenge stubborn states like Delaware to choose between joining the union and courting some foreign ally. Madison lectured, “if the principal States comprehending a majority of the people of the U. S. should concur in a just & judicious plan, he had the firmest hopes, that all the other States would by degrees accede to it.”

Other nationalists joined Madison’s offensive against the compromise. James Wilson charged that the Committee exceeded its powers (a charge that seems ironic, given Wilson’s support of the Virginia Plan, which many thought exceeded the Convention’s mandate of simply revising the Articles of Confederation). Gouverneur Morris thundered against those who acted as if “we were assembled to truck and bargain for our particular States” and warned “This Country must be united. If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will.”

Perhaps sensing a concerted effort on the part of the nationalists to paint him as disloyal to the Confederation, Mr. Bedford, rose to state he had been misunderstood, and had no intention that Delaware or other small states should seek protection outside of the union. But others were not cowed by the bluster of the nationalists. Several delegates rose to offer support of the Gerry Committee’s report, or at least to a hearing of the report. None was more forceful in defense of giving the Gerry Committee report a hearing than George Mason. The surly Virginian was growing impatient, and cautioned quarrelsome colleagues that “the Report was meant not as specific propositions to be adopted; but merely as a general ground of accommodation.”  But Mason was not about to finish there, proclaiming that “he would bury his bones in this City rather than expose his Country to the Consequences of a dissolution of the Convention without any thing being done.”

Mason’s stern words led directly to consideration of the provisions of the Gerry Committee’s report.

For more detailed information on the Constitutional Convention, please visit Prof. Gordon Lloyd’s web companion to the Philadelphia Convention.

Philadelphia –

Well over a month into the convention, the delegates are still at odds over how to settle the question of representation in the new government. All believed that the answer to this question would determine whether the states would continue as distinct political societies, or whether the new national government would form one political society.

The notion of a national government had gained enough support that the delegations accepted a national legislature that would represent citizens, not states. For some, like Luther Martin, the Convention’s movement to this point appeared to have made an old world disappear. He “remarked that the language of the states being sovereign and independent, was once familiar and understood; though it seemed now so strange and obscure.” Others, like Madison, feared that the continuing attachment of some delegates to the sovereignty of the states would lead the states to perpetual war against one another.

Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, however, “did not despair. He still trusted that some good plan of government would be devised and adopted.” Declaring that “we were partly national; partly federal,” Ellsworth pushed the need for compromise. He proposed that if the lower house of the national legislature is elected on the “national principle,” the upper house should be elected on the “federal principle”. Madison reports, “He trusted that on this middle ground a compromise would take place. He did not see that it could on any other. And if no compromise should take place, our meeting would not only be in vain but worse than in vain.”

The following day saw even more division among the delegates. Madison and James Wilson argued against this compromise, challenging that it would allow a minority to overrule a majority. Madison even went so far in defense of proportional representation as to propose that one house draw its representatives on the basis of all free inhabitants, and the other on the basis of free inhabitants plus slaves. Some defenders of state sovereignty actually called for the Convention to inform the governor of New Hampshire to send its delegates (who were not present) to help defend the interests of small states.

Help for the resolution came from an unexpected place. North Carolina delegate William Davie – who had yet to speak up during the Convention’s proceedings – agreed with Ellsworth, stating, “We were partly federal, partly national in our Union, and he did not see why the Govt. might (not) in some respects operate on the states, in others on the people.” James Wilson warmed to the idea, then Dr. Franklin offered warm words in support of compromise, then Madison indicated he might be open. There were dissenters on both sides, but at the end of the week, Saturday June 30, the makings of a compromise were there.

Davie’s support for Ellsworth’s compromise helped bring the issue to a vote. On July 2^nd the resolution was defeated in a 5-5-1 tie. Roger Sherman, seeing the delegations equally divided, complained, “We are now at a full stop.” But he challenged his fellow delegates not to give up, and suggested giving this complicated question over to a committee to solve. The delegations agreed, and appointed one delegate from each of the eleven states represented in the Convention. Led the Elbridge Gerry, the Committee would spend the next several days debating the fate of state representation in the new government. With that, the Convention adjourned, leaving the delegates a chance to escape debate and celebrate the eleventh anniversary of independence on July 4.

For more detailed information on the Constitutional Convention, please visit Prof. Gordon Lloyd’s web companion to the Philadelphia Convention.